2025:JHHC:23632-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Commercial Appeal No. 15 of 2023 Tata Steel Utilities and Infrastructure Services Limited ( Tata Steel UISL), formerly Jamshedpur Utilities & Serviced Company Limited (JUSCO), Sakchi Boulevard Road, Northern Town, Bistupur, Town- Jamshedpur, P.O. & P.S.-Bistupur, District- East Singhbhum, Jharkhand-831001; through its duly authorized signatory Mr. Jai Pushpit Pallav, aged about 47 years, son of Sri J.P.N. Das, resident of Flat No. C-5/3, Eden Park, Bhatia Basti, Kadma, Town-Jamshedpur, P.O.& P.S. Kadma, District-East Singhbhum…. …. …Appellant Versus Yadunandan Singh, a proprietorship, through its proprietor Mr. Yadunandan Singh, son of Sri Adhar Singh having address as House Number 58, Mira Mandir, Ishwar Nagar, Dana Pani Road, Arera Colony, P.O. & P.S.- R.S. Nagar, District- Bhopal ( Madhya Pradesh)- 462016. … … … Respondent --------- CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR --------- For the Appellant : Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai, Advocate [ Through V.C.] Mr. Rohit Ranjan Sinha, Advocate Mr. Arpit Khandelwal, Advocate Kumar Rahul, Advocate Harshit Prasad, Advocate For the Respondent: Mr. Rakesh Kumar Trivedi, Advocate --------- 10/Dated: 13.08.2025 1) On 11.08.2025, this Court passed the following orders:- “09/Dated: 11.08.2025 Heard. The respondent after raising as many as 10 claims before the arbitrator, agreed to compromise the matter giving up all his claims for Rs.10 lakhs. The said amount was duly paid by the petitioner as evident from the money receipt available at page 33 of the Paper Book No. 1. Not only this he in fact, executed an affidavit/undertaking on the same day, which is found at page nos. 31 and 32 of the Paper Book-1 and later on, the respondent chose to resile from the settlement leading to a second reference to the arbitrator to examine whether the affidavit/undertaking/indemnity and receipt of payment by the respondent was vitiated by stealth and duress/coercion. It is not in dispute that the respondent failed to establish this plea before the arbitrator and yet the arbitrator proceeded to reopen the claims as made by the respondent at serial Nos. 8 and 10. In our view, it was not open to the respondent much less open to the arbitrator to have adjudicated these claims, once the respondent had 2025:JHHC:23632-DB failed to prove coercion/duress etc. in the execution of the settlement for a lump sum of Rs.10 lacs. Confronted with this, the learned counsel for the respondent prays for adjournment. List on 13.08.2025.” 2) The learned counsel for the respondent would only argue that grave injustice has been done to his client inasmuch as a huge amount due and payable to the respondent has been withheld by the appellant herein under the garb of the order. However, we find this contention to be without any merit beyond the fact that it was the respondent himself who had accepted the amount of Rs. 10,000,00/- (Rs. Ten Lakh only) towards the full and final settlement and his contentions that such amount was accepted under stealth, duress or coercion, did not find favour even before the arbitrator and such findings have attained finality as no appeal against such finding has been preferred by the respondent. 3) In the given facts and circumstances, we have no hesitation to allow the appeal. 4) Accordingly, while allowing the appeal, we set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 10.02.2020 passed in Arbitration Case No. 8 of 2019 and the arbitral award dated 18.02.2019 passed by the Sole Arbitrator Sri G.M. Mishra, leaving the parties to bear the costs. 5) Interlocutory application, if any, stands disposed of. (Tarlok Singh Chauhan, C.J.) NAFR (Rajesh Shankar, J.) Sharda/MM/ Cp.02